Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Earth

BRICS Demand Wealthy Nations Fund Global Climate Transition (reuters.com) 115

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
Leaders of the BRICS group of developing nations addressed the shared challenges of global warming on Monday, the final day of their summit in Rio de Janeiro, demanding that wealthy nations fund mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in poorer nations. From a report: In his opening remarks, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who will host the United Nations climate summit in November, also blasted denialism of the climate emergency, indirectly criticizing U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to pull his country out of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

"Today, denialism and unilateralism are eroding past achievements and harming our future," he said. "The Global South is in a position to lead a new development paradigm without repeating the mistakes of the past." Trump took issue on Sunday with veiled criticism from the BRICS group, accusing the bloc of having "anti-American policies" and threatening them with extra 10% tariffs.

BRICS Demand Wealthy Nations Fund Global Climate Transition More | Reply

BRICS Demand Wealthy Nations Fund Global Climate Transition

Comments Filter:

  • Already done! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Monday July 07, 2025 @04:25PM (#65503668) Homepage

    What's neglected here is that the rich nations have already done this, by funding a decades-long research and development effort which reduced the cost of solar panels from about $500 a watt in 1980 to under $0.5 a watt in 2025.

    • Solar panels are cheap because of China, not because of "development effort" of the "decades-long research" done by rich nations. You are taking like that research was given for free and is not riddled with patents designed to make more money that it cost to make them, designed to make the rich nations richer.

      This kind of stories always bring about the most bottom scrapping idiots who have zero critical thinking and ability to self-reflect right to the forefront. Each 1 positively modded comment is regurgit

      • Is China not a rich nation? Google says their GDP is $17 trillion (and says that the US GDP is $27 trillion for comparison)

        Where did China get the money to pay for their development of cheap solar panels? Was it not from selling them to rich nations?

        And riddled with patents or not, are you saying that the price didn't go from $500/watt to $0.5/watt? If a poor nation buys a solar panel from China, are they paying $0.5/watt PLUS patent fees or simply paying $0.5/watt.

        I'm not the person you replied to, but you

        • What bollocks. China installs about twice as much solar each year as the rest of the world combined. That solar is produced in China and financed by Chinese banks. Supply, demand, financing are domestic. Internationally, too, Chinese companies are the main financiers and providers of green energy investment in the world. China is the only country in the world that has complete value chains in almost all areas of green energy production. The idea that China substantially depends on the meager demand of Weste

      • Solar panels are cheap because of China, not because of "development effort" of the "decades-long research" done by rich nations.

        It may look like that from this side of the millennium, but no, the history is simply in the process of being forgotten. This was a big effort.

        Pretty much ALL of the present solar technology we see in megawatt production today is an outgrowth of the old Large Silicon Solar Array ("LSSA") program of the late 70s/early 80s (although the University of New South Wales group led by Martin Green needs to get some credit, too).

        The program was originally part of RANN ("Research Applied to National Needs") and trans

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      They are mostly talking about the cost of mitigation now. All that CO2 we dumped into the atmosphere, vastly more than people in developing nations, is affecting their countries now. It also means that because we already did it, for there to be any hope of keeping climate change under control, they have to transition very rapidly away from fossil fuels.

      Even the younger generations in developed nations can make this claim. To limit climate change to something only moderately catastrophic, the average millenn

  • That will fix it (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ukoda ( 537183 )

    Trump took issue on Sunday with veiled criticism from the BRICS group, accusing the bloc of having "anti-American policies" and threatening them with extra 10% tariffs.

    Tariffs, the new miracle cure for any problem. If doesn't solve the problem then just raise the tariffs. Why am I reminded of the old poster "The beatings will continue until moral improves"?

    • https://www.facebook.com/share... [facebook.com] Hope you don't mind, I couldn't let that insightful comment get lost in the shuffle...

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Zocalo ( 252965 )
        You should post that on Truth Social for the Lulz. I hear Donnie likes big simple charts. :)

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by DrMrLordX ( 559371 )

      Nobody claimed that tariffs would solve climate change. They're intended as a threat against stupid BRICS nations as a response to their obvious grift.

      • Re:That will fix it (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ukoda ( 537183 ) on Monday July 07, 2025 @05:55PM (#65503850) Homepage
        The problems with threats is there has to be a clear relationship about what actions will trigger what response. The problem with TACO is if you do something you may, or may not, get tariffs. Likewise if you do nothing you may, or may not, get tariffs. They are a meaningless tool as trump is too unpredictable.

        The correct response to this obvious BRICS grift is to ignore it, and make policies based getting the best results. Fuck Russia, China is doing fine already and the rest should get some help, but they should try asking nicely.

      • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

        by Baloo Uriza ( 1582831 )
        Seems self-defeating. Like trying to combat illegal immigration by deporting legal immigrants and ignoring the companies that participate in human trafficking and illegal labor.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gtall ( 79522 )

        At this point, no country is paying much attention to la Presidenta's "threats". Instead, they seem to be working around the U.S. and cutting the U.S. out of their trade negotiations. They have every incentive to do that now since la Presidenta has the attention span of a gnat and no one (outside of the Maggots) believe anything he says or will bank on him not saying the opposite next week in response to something odd in his Froot Loops.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by hwstar ( 35834 )

      There goes trump again with his zero sum game "deals".
      All for me and none for thee.

  • give us money, because reasons......

  • Pot, Meet Kettle (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ironicsky ( 569792 ) on Monday July 07, 2025 @05:02PM (#65503740) Journal

    BRICS
      Brazil
      Russia
      India
      China
      South Africa

    China is responsible for 35% of all global greenhouse gas emissions
    Between these countries, they represent over 55% of total global greenhouse gases

    Brazil, China and India are also 3 of the top environmental destruction countries globally.
    China, India and Russia and Brazil, as 4 countries have the same GDP as the USA.

    Pay for your own mistakes yourself.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      These *are* wealthy nations.

      India and China? get fucked. Tax the rich.

      Russia? Stop spending your budget on war.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by evil_aaronm ( 671521 )
      You do realize that China and India are environmentally destructive because America sent its environmentally destructive business there, right? I mean, at some point, they picked up their own bad habits, but we (America) started that fire, as Billy Joel might sing.

      • You do realize that China and India are environmentally destructive because America sent its environmentally destructive business there, right?

        Remind me again, what year was it that the US rolled into China and India with tanks and bombers and forced them to build environmentally destructive industries against their strong environmental objections?

        Or maybe attribute some agency to the Chinese and Indians. Maybe, just maybe, they developed enormously polluting industries of their own volition and aggressively marketed their output to Americans who said "You mean we can pass environmental regulations and clean up our country and you actually want to

        • Oh, this is cute. We didn't have to "force" them. Sure, they have "agency," but shove a truck full of money in just about anyone's face, and tell me they won't do what you want them to. Especially when their people are desperate. We see similar behavior every election cycle: rich people promise Republican politicians a ton of money, and Republicans in office sell the rest of us out. As a four-digit-ID person, you should be well aware that people can be easily bought.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      China's CO2 emissions per capita are a fraction of what we emit today, let alone where we peaked. The average Chinese citizen emits about half what the average US citizen does.

      It's even worse if you consider cumulative emissions since the 1880s, in which case the US has about double those of China, which adjusted to per capita is about 8x as much.

      They are also installing clean, renewable energy faster than the rest of the world combined. They are leaders in EV technology and sales.

      Even if you want to argue

    • China is responsible for 35% of all global greenhouse gas emissions

      China is going to be the cleanest global economic powerhouse to ever develop. Both in terms of per capita and in terms of total emissions the USA *CUMULATIVELY* has put more green house gasses into the environment than China is on track to *ever* do.

      And cumulative is the point here. The USA built it's economy and wealth on fucking the planet. Most of the west did. And now we hypocritically blame the developing and newly developed nations for their emissions.

      Aren't we privileged.

  • Demand whatever you want (Score:3)

    by devslash0 ( 4203435 ) on Monday July 07, 2025 @05:21PM (#65503780)

    You're still not getting any of my tax money.

  • Number Two world economy demands someone else finance something.

  • demanding that wealthy nations fund mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in poorer nations.

    And in turn, I demand a pony.

    Oh wait, people can't just up and demand stuff? Dang.

  • Unless they dont really care and are making it all about money

  • Mitigation isn't going happen. Funding denied (Score:3)

    by m00sh ( 2538182 ) on Monday July 07, 2025 @06:58PM (#65504014)

    The west doesn't care about climate change mitigation. We are in a place between denying it and not caring about it. We have made up our mind that we will live with the consequences of it and not mitigate it.

    It is in bad taste to ask for funds from the west for this. Brazil can cut down all of its amazon rain forest and cultivate soyabean for China and we won't care. The bribing to not cut down the rain-forest is getting old.

    The idea of preserving this and preserving that is out of the window. We have to accept climate change, deal with the disasters.

    • Cooperation hard. Patsies easier. A twist on Maslow needs for regimes. Near term political power more important for survival. Long term issues that entail potential sacrifice hard to prioritize. China is trying since coal is suffocating themselves and see some economic benefits to diversify their energy with lower carbon options such as nuclear, hydro, solar etc still they need energy and coal is available. They can burn coal cleaner at least small improvements with newer plants.

  • With the possible exception of Switzerland everyone is broke.

    • There's a difference between tax rates set and government deficits and wealth in terms of the economy. Look at GDP/capita PPP. Whilst GDP/capita in Western nations hasn't been progressing well, it's still higher than that of BRICS nations, although some are catching up. GDP/capita does over up inequality, and USA, UK and China all have problematic GINI coefficients. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]

    • Sure, if you only look at the bottom line on a balance sheet.

      You know what else functions as factors in wealth?

      A lack of govt corruption
      A fair and functioning legal system
      A reasonable rate of inflation
      Protection of private property rights
      A reasonable national infrastructure
      The ability to defend national borders
      Etc. etc. etc.

      I'd much rather live in a country with these things and a hefty national debt than one without them that is debt free.

  • Or at least part of them. I don't think any country with thousands of thermonuclear warheads can be described as "developing." Russia/USSR was a major contributor to climate change through its oil exports and pollution policies.

  • The countries causing the most pollution wany more responsible countries that have their shit together to pay for their mistake and damage? No thanks.

  • "wealthy" nations are all broke af

  • gimme money, that's what I want.

Slashdot Top Deals

Let's organize this thing and take all the fun out of it.

Close